ARPIT RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1393 of 2026

Arpit Rai
                                                                        .....Revisionist(s)
                                         Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                           :    Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                        :    G.A.

Court No. - 87
                            HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2026
passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Session
Trial No. 158 of 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the name of the revisionist
was mentioned in the F.I.R.; however, during the investigation he was exonerated and
no charge sheet was filed against him. Charges were framed against the other accused,
and thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed.

4. It has further been submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the
revisionist in the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is also contended that no finding has been recorded by the learned trial court in
the impugned order dated 27.01.2026.

5. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asim Akhtar Versus The State of West
Bengal and another, 2024 INSC 794 that complicity of any person sought to be
arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of
the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and there is no mandate to decide the
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. before cross examination of other witnesses. It
is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab,
(2014) 3 SCC 92, that the word "evidence" used in section 319 Cr.P.C. indicates, the
word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. The summoning of
accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled, that this power is an extraordinary power,
which should be used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the
summoning order under section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than
prima facie case made out, or not; mere prima facie case is not sufficient. It is held by
Hon'ble Supreme court in Omi Versus State of M.P. (2025) 2 SCC 621, that trial
court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of the evidence adduced
                                                                                                      CRLR No. 1393 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    before it and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge sheet or the case
                                    diary because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not
                                    constitute evidence. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Baran Versus
                                    State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1457 that trial court can exercise power to
                                    summon an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the
                                    evidence adduced before it and not any other material collected during investigation.

                                    6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the revisionist was named
                                    in the F.I.R., had come to the spot, and committed the offence with common intention.
                                    It is settled law that the evidence recorded before the trial court is to be considered at
                                    the time of summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also settled that the
                                    evidence must be more than a mere prima facie case and, if left uncontroverted,
                                    should be such as may lead to conviction.

                                    7. The learned trial court has recorded a finding that accused Rajesh Rai, Prashant Rai,
                                    and Arpit Rai were named in the F.I.R. In the statements of P.W.-1 Avanish Rai and
                                    P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar Rai recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the names of the
                                    three accused were mentioned, and during their examination before the trial court,
                                    their names also surfaced.

                                    8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, while considering an application
                                    under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only the evidence produced before the trial court can be
                                    taken into account, as that constitutes substantive evidence. The learned trial court is
                                    required to record a specific finding that the evidence recorded before it is of such a
                                    nature that it is more than a prima facie case and is sufficient to lead to conviction if
                                    unrebutted.

                                    9. There is no reasoning in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
                                    Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and is
                                    hereby set aside. The learned trial court is directed to decide the application under
                                    Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with the law laid down in Hardeep Singh v.
                                    State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Asim Akhtar v. State of West Bengal and
                                    Another, 2024 INSC 794; Omi v. State of M.P., (2025) 2 SCC 621; and Shiv
                                    Baran v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1457.

                                    10. With these observations, the criminal revision stands disposed of.

                                    February 24, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                                          (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad